Is the reduced burn through range good or bad

[S77th-Souless]

Just was wondering what the community thinks of the BVR being reduced to 10-12 in FC1.1

Heres my thoughts, with auto acquisition locking targets at 10 miles it seems a little redundant to me to have burn through at this time as well.

Just a thought

[S77th-GOYA]

If in real life, a self-jamming target never burns through, why have radar auto-acquisition systems at all? To shoot down planes from countries that can't afford a/c with jammers?

[Pilotasso]

I have not 1.1 yet just the demo, but I find this Jamming excessive! It makes all aircraft virtualy immune. it should make a BVR lock harder to maintain but not completely block it untill visual range!

 

It then makes the ARH missiles in TWS completely unusable at viable ranges.

[coldcrew]

in the game.. no. It brings all fights down to heater range. Try flying online and all you get is jamming signals. boring. For game wise it's probably more fun to increase the burn through range. Another way would be to reduce the effectiveness of the search radar. This would balance out the ECM/non ecm use since ECM would light them up on radar while they might otherwise go undetected without it.

[Guest ruggbutt]

IIRC the burn thru range is realistic. It also adds other factors into the fight. Turn jammers on and leave 'em on? Alternate them between on and off? HOJ the bastards? I like it. It makes an already complicated fight more complicated. As soon as they fix the HOJ launch warnings and some of the other bugs this sim is gonna rock.

[S77th-Souless]

well rugbutt they told us before that 25km was more realistic now they say 15-16 Problem is I dont think anyone really knows or if burn through is actually achieved

I do agree with fixing the HOJ launch warnings will dramatically benefit the game.

[gustav]

I really hope they fix the various radar/ecm/rwr-bugs soon cause i've stopped playing. It's not fun at all when you cant trust the systems. The fight feels totally pointless. The lock/launch tone in my jamming su-27 just drives me crazy.

[Guest ruggbutt]

well rugbutt they told us before that 25km was more realistic now they say 15-16

 

I'm swamped at work but as soon as I can I'll ask my F16 pilot friend. I still haven't delivered his DVD of LOMAC vids so the timing will be right. IIRC the '16 radar is a bit less powerful than the '15. Either way we'll have some sort of idea.

[169th_DedCat]

Jamming doesn't make anyone immune to anything. If anything, the way most LOMAC pilots brainlessly fly around broadcasting ECM all over the place lights them up like a Christmas tree. People seem to think it makes them harder to find or track, it in fact makes it much much easier. Things only get tricky if there is a large group of jammers to sort.

 

I prefer the way ECM is modeled now than to how it was in 1.02. There was no such thing as a HOJ shot in 1.02 since the burn-through range was well before any medium range missile shot.

[Pilotasso]

IIRC the burn thru range is realistic. It also adds other factors into the fight. Turn jammers on and leave 'em on? Alternate them between on and off? HOJ the bastards? I like it. It makes an already complicated fight more complicated. As soon as they fix the HOJ launch warnings and some of the other bugs this sim is gonna rock.

 

The problem is that currently, missiles in HOJ are very easely spoofed off. All new players will feel intimidated by this electronic storm caused by mere pods, and will probably fail to get a shot off.

 

1.1 is likely to become a hunting ground where experinced players jump out of the electric static haze and pick up noobs like daysies!

 

Not that it didnt happen already but at least they had the illusion of trying to shoot us top dogs but without efect. It was all about skill and not racing to reach the burn through range before your oponent does!

[Guest ruggbutt]

Once they fix some of the issues that have arisen regarding active missiles and the F15's radar, m/p is gonna be one hell of a knife fight. I'm looking forward to it. Right now you're better off eschewing the western planes...............

[Pilotasso]

Ill probably be still able to squeeze something out of the western planes, such as 4 target engaging under 20 miles, but that will be out of the question for someone new to the game as he will get killed long before he has a chance to perfect his skills.

[169th_DedCat]

The problem is that currently, missiles in HOJ are very easely spoofed off.

 

That's pretty normal. HOJ shouldn't be anywhere near as effective as a solid SARH or ARH shot. A true HOJ missile isn't going to have a lot of information to plot a serious intercept, it is a jammer it is tracking after all. HOJ shots are only really effective against non-aggressively manoeuvring targets. They seem to be pretty relentless against fleeing targets that don't know enough to switch their jammer off though.

[GGTharos]

Here's what I know (so far) about Jamming and countermeasures to be applied to it:

 

You can jam. Jamming can be countered.

(This is what we know. The rest in this post will be speculation...)

 

Firstly, thre's no 'burn through' range. That isn't to say it doesn't exist: It does, but by the equations it amounts to something like 800 FEET. So realistically, you get that jammer signal until you collide with your opponent ...

 

Now (this part isn't speculation) The F-15's radar will perform a very quick triangulation to get the target target range against the jamming target IF the pilot follows correct procedure ... don't ask any more: you'll just run into a wall, the rest is classified.

 

What this means is that you can engage a target with HoJ, and even project a course, but your solution would be very 'fuzzy' ... how that's represented, is anyone's guess. Point is that you can get enough info for a loft and if you maintain your track on the emitter, possibly enough for a lead solution. If the target maneuvers, it'll take several seconds to compute another solution. If the target maneuvers constantly, your solution will rapidly become useless.

 

That said, the missile knows what it's going for, an realistically it will use Proportional Navigation (like regular homing does) to hit the emitter. I know SK will dispute this, but everything I've read suggests that PN is used in HoJ modes.

 

HoJ is, just because of the aforementioned properties, inefficient because: You have a poor solution. Even with the ebaring and range, you have no lead solution. If you do have a lead solution, it may rapidly become invalid and the next solution may force your missile to take an energy-killing turn.

 

 

How can we defeat HoJ? There are a numebr of methods - the F-15's is one,a nd obviously not the greatest, but it works. (Here's the thing: There's no solution that's 'the greatest'. There are different types of jamming and ifferent ways to counter them. Sometimes you might not even be able to tell that a jammer is operating, insofar as smart jammers go)

You could use pulse coding, but that will only work against range gate stealing and basic range jamming. Angle jamming will just floor you there. But there are ways ot deal with this, too!

 

But then, you've got 'crosseyed' jamming ... how the heck do you deal with crosseyed jamming? I'm sure you can, too ... but it's not easy either. What about jammers bouncing a perfectly good signal off chaff? How will you be able to tell?

 

Am I making yoru heads spin yet? ECM/ECCM is an extreemly complex subejcts and the real techniques for dealing with it are classified even for SAM systems dating back to the 50's.

 

 

Let's recap:

 

1. HoJ is inefficient is due to lack of information on target aspect, most often.

2. ECM and ECCM methods are plentiful.

 

LOMAC thus tries to compromise for all this by using a pure pursuit course for HoJ missiles (while it hshould really be PN) ... but at this point if the radar seekers on missiles are well simulated, and I believe that they're not, you can actually make the HoJ shot inefficient with the 'real' (ie what I assume is real) reason for the inefficienty, and have terminal homing occur using PN.

At the same time, if a 'radar target' is implemented for aircraft, it is possible to then introduce the various types of jamming ... in some cases, this may be computationally prohibitive, so there may be a necessity to represent different jamemrs in different ways programatically.

 

 

What does all this mean?

ED is finishing with LOMAC as of 1.2.

 

This means that, IMHO, they will improve on the current codebase but won't do anything radically new like attempting to simulate the electronic environemnt with ridicously high fidelity in LOMAC.

 

It does also means that ED -may- be able to represent it a little better given what they have now, but this is VERY difficult. I'll point out that while what I've reasoned out here may seem simple on the surface, it is NEITHER simple in reality, NOR is it simple to program or even figure out to program, NOR is it even necessarily possible to include within a sim without requiring a liquid-helium cooled AMD128 overclocked to 5Thz.

[Guest ruggbutt]

Ill probably be still able to squeeze something out of the western planes, such as 4 target engaging under 20 miles, but that will be out of the question for someone new to the game as he will get killed long before he has a chance to perfect his skills.

 

Against targets online? I'd like to see a reprensentation of your "skills". In your last two posts you infer that you are quite the superior pilot and that the problems that everyone else is having w/the F15 don't apply to you. Your comments are quite self serving, and I don't buy into your self hype.

[tflash]

We should evaluate these techniques also from the cold war scenario's they evolved from. A massive strategic bomber package, which can't hide from radar anyway, would massively be jamming to get to the launch point of their cruise missiles (or in the case of deep strikers, break through the first air defenses). This has the additional advantage that you effectively hide your escorting fighters.

 

HOJ is in these conditions a very effective counter measure: you just ripple a salvo of missiles in the general direction of the jamming strike package, effectively forcing them to react: whether by selectively shutting down ECM (not all aircraft in the package of course, if they're smart they would be alternating jamming) or start avoidance manoevres.

 

The interceptors could thus hope to break the fast moving package apart; the bombers would loose speed and height and in the merge be very vulnerable for radar-guided or ir-guided shots.

 

I really would doubt that a CAP or SWEEP flying fighter aircraft on the other hand would be jamming around, because this would unneccesarily give away its position.

I do not think however that such a fighter should really fear a HOJ shot, for the reasons mentioned in this thread: since the HOJ missile doesn't really have a clue, it is most of the time outmanoevred easily.

[Pilotasso]

Against targets online? I'd like to see a reprensentation of your "skills". In your last two posts you infer that you are quite the superior pilot and that the problems that everyone else is having w/the F15 don't apply to you. Your comments are quite self serving, and I don't buy into your self hype.

 

Dont be like that, I hadnt and wont need to publicitize my skills whatever they are like.

(BTW if you want a sample of it, just meet me online every day around 19H GMT london , greewich time)

If you read my post carefully I was just expressing my concern about the games popularity online. We used to have lots of new blood every day online untill 1.1 came out. From then on I saw less and less people coming in. Partialy because most popular servers converted to 1.1 leaving 1.02 users stuck. But Im realy concerned once 1.1 conversion is complete that newbie pilots will feel intimidated by the hostile ECM weather and quit playing before they can achieve the confidence we have.

 

I and most of us (didnt want to talk for anyone else but me) Play the game long enough to adapt, but noobs wont have this base experience to start with.

 

I want to be still able to play online as long as there are enough people to play it.

 

I used to play it online (my only use of the game) every night and lately I had only 1 or 2 good sessions a week.

[Kula66]

Now (this part isn't speculation) The F-15's radar will perform a very quick triangulation to get the target target range against the jamming target IF the pilot follows correct procedure ... don't ask any more: you'll just run into a wall, the rest is classified.

I wonder if is similar to TMA done on subs? Here they only have a noise source and a bearing ... sound familar?

[GGTharos]

Not quite - similar principle, but much simpler ... literally for the F-15 it is a simple and quick triangulation (only a few seconds), which is something that a sub is not able to do for many reasons, starting with the speed of sound in water, the various sound channels, etcetc.

 

For the 15 it's measure angle, turn, measure angle, compute. Although the aircraft may have shifted position significantly by the time you complete your computation (possibly by as much as 1nm or 2nm for a mach 2 aircraft) it gives you some incertainty in the range, but not large enough to make your shot horrendously unreliable.

[D-Scythe]

According to Steve Davies, the APG-70/63v1 has *several* special modes that are provided to counter various ECM techniques. Furthermore, it will not only reconfigure the radar to optimise both detection and tracking of such targets, but also enter special tracking modes when they're encountered.

 

It seems that kinematic ranging is probably the most public (and obvious) of these special ECCM modes, but not the only one.

[tflash]

Very interesting is the fact that Boeing proposes a pylon-mounted IRST for air-to-air engagements on its F-15K.

 

Given the performance of the AN/APG-63(v)1 radar, one wonders why this system is proposed. In fact, where Russian and European manufacturers are known to be long-time adherents of the air-to-air IRST philosophy as a means to passively acquire targets (standard on Su-27/Mig-29; Rafale has sophisticated optronics suite and Eurofighter is supposed to get Pirate); the USAF has never shown big enthousiasm (F-4B and F-14A had it, but to my knowledge it is not retained for F/A-22).

 

I suppose it will be mainly used as an additional target identification tool, but of course it could also be an element of countering ECM?

[GGTharos]

More likely to be used just because it's passive and it reduces the target's situational wareness (no warning tones etc, can't check rwr if you lose him visually ... that sort of thing). ID range is still fairly poor AFAIK.

[Pilotasso]

Very interesting is the fact that Boeing proposes a pylon-mounted IRST for air-to-air engagements on its F-15K.

 

Given the performance of the AN/APG-63(v)1 radar, one wonders why this system is proposed. In fact, where Russian and European manufacturers are known to be long-time adherents of the air-to-air IRST philosophy as a means to passively acquire targets (standard on Su-27/Mig-29; Rafale has sophisticated optronics suite and Eurofighter is supposed to get Pirate); the USAF has never shown big enthousiasm (F-4B and F-14A had it, but to my knowledge it is not retained for F/A-22).

 

I suppose it will be mainly used as an additional target identification tool, but of course it could also be an element of countering ECM?

 

LOL, not making fun of you but this made a picture apear in my mind:

 

Back in 70's and 80's all russian and other eastern types were so BADLY beaten in radar power range that I think there was a confortable conviction that this advantage would continue on the west side. Im talking about the F-15' F-14, F-18, Tornado F-3 and even the litle F-16 had over the Mig-21,23 and for most of its lifetime the 29 also.

 

For this reason Im convinced that the west never felt a grieving need for it, as its pilots could simply paint their counterparts and say "HElloooow there! Hope you like my presents!" and shoot from far away.

 

It was actualy the Mig-23 to first use the IRST and not the Mig-29 nor the Su-27. Some mig-23's had bulges under the nose wich howsed the IRST, it was only later that they decided to mount it on top instead.

 

Russia had already had plenty of experience by being painted by radar and be shot at first. Its freinds the lybians the Syrians the egyptians and their own pilots fell numerous times like this. The Mig-23 had the IRST and it reflected this concern. The Mig-25 had enough power for range but it was focused for shorter range but much preciser radar for intecepting the SR-71 originaly.

The Mig-31 had a much longer range but its was also much too slugish in manuevers for knife fights, so it had to shoot and escape early wich in the end reduces its kill chances.

 

It was not untill very recently that the Mig-29 recieved the much needed upgrades for credible BVR reach, but IMHO there are still far to few examples compared to the regular versions still in service. The Su-27 has a powerfull radar but its still debatable if it can match those of the west in terms of engaging and tracking capabilities.

[ThirdELTPoznan]

Very interesting is the fact that Boeing proposes a pylon-mounted IRST for air-to-air engagements on its F-15K.

 

Given the performance of the AN/APG-63(v)1 radar, one wonders why this system is proposed. In fact, where Russian and European manufacturers are known to be long-time adherents of the air-to-air IRST philosophy as a means to passively acquire targets (standard on Su-27/Mig-29; Rafale has sophisticated optronics suite and Eurofighter is supposed to get Pirate); the USAF has never shown big enthousiasm (F-4B and F-14A had it, but to my knowledge it is not retained for F/A-22).

 

I suppose it will be mainly used as an additional target identification tool, but of course it could also be an element of countering ECM?

 

In real world IRST is only effective in good weather conditions as well as IR missiles.

You mentioned F/A-22A, it doesn't have EOS but why should it have one? It has APG-77 which is LPI radar, which is more efective than EOS!

[tflash]

Well, in fact that is same question I asked: why does a plane with APG-63(V)1 radar would need air-to-air IRST?

 

I wonder if it is related to ECM. The use of IRST is not limited to IR-missiles: with sensor fusion techniques, the F-15K's computer can use the targetting data of the long-range IRST to complement its own radar data and have a more exact bearing to the ECM-emmitting target. Just like could do the inverse: use your radar lock to steer a FLIR sensor.

 

Merging long-range IR with radar could be an interesting way to counter ECM; as I understood it the French are also trying this with the Rafale's Optronics suite.